It’s pretty clear that he is saying that Liz Cheney is a war hawk but might change that stance if she found herself on the other side of said hawking. Your statement is technically correct but like many other interpretations of his statements, forgoes context and intent to make an easy point.

The context is that he has been publicly calling for a televised military tribunal for Cheney (who is not in the military) for quite a while now, but since he’s a senile old man who “weaved” this into an argument against hawkishness, the right wing can play dumb.

"Let's put her with a rifle..."

Since when do people facing firing squads get issued a rifle of their own? How do you explain this language he is using?

To me it's clear he meant "put her in combat facing a squad of adversaries" (US Army squads are 9 men, USMC are 13), essentially calling her a coward/chickenhawk.

Sure if you omit the times he's called for televised military tribunals for Cheney, an American citizen who has never served in the military. As already addressed below, the fact that he's "weaving" (deliriously free-associating) various arguments together isn't a good defense.

But, should we deceive people like the tech companies are doing right now with privacy?

If someone is scared that his position will be known and still do it only because there is some fakely advertised security in place, you may ruin that person's life againt their will.

I prefer a system where people know how things work, take risks and are responsible. For what do we need a democracy if people are so scared of their family, neighbours and coworkers political views. The way we do democracy should me more mature after all this time. Probably the only place in the world trying to do it right is Switzerland, per example they have frequent local votations accomplished by raising one's hand.

Take risks like having their husbands beating them to death after an election because they voted for the wrong person?

> If there is a risk that a husband would beat his wife in this case and that she could not leave him, there is no way that any form of electronic vote would change her life, or even her childrens. People who protect this system will probably rig the votes to keep it or a similar one.

What? There are people in America who live under this threat today, and yes voting can actually change important parts of their lives.

> There are people in America who live under this threat today

Women under threat of their spouse beating them to death for voting "incorrectly"? Can you link to some examples of this? Like testimony of women who came forward fearing their spouses, not just in general terms but on this specific issue of voting?

You don't think domestic abusers try to control their partners' right to vote under threat of physical violence?

What parts of the country have you lived in?

I am open to the idea that it is possible, but many things are possible. I'm asking you to share information that supports your assertion. You still haven't done so. It appears you're dodging the question. Do you have documented examples or data, or not?

I didn't ask if it's possible. I asked whether you think it happens.

I suspect you can't answer that question directly because the answer is self-evident and destructive to your case.

Anyway, here are a few anecdotes: https://restlessnetwork.com/domestic-abuse-is-a-voter-suppre...

Inb4 "those are anecdotes!" And then subsequent refusal to answer the point blank question of whether you believe it happens or not, for aforementioned reasons.

> I didn't ask if it's possible. I asked whether you think it happens.

I would not make an assertion either for or against it in the absence of data. I would not put forth such a hypothesis without at least anecdotal indicators of a problem. I appreciate you linking to something; even anecdotes help to paint a picture for potentially additional research/analysis, so thanks for that. Now, in response to the linked anecdotes:

The author mentions emotional gaslighting in 2009 and in 2017. There's no indication that she or the other woman was at risk of physical abuse (which is what you suggested was the issue) in either case.

So I would agree with and endorse the statement "Some men use emotional abuse and gaslighting to control how their spouses vote" but still disagree with the extreme position of "women are at risk of being beaten to death for their voting positions" as that remains unsupported hysteria.

This is the most charitable take I can make from your link. There's some real nuggets sprinkled in her writing which lead me to paint her as a completely unreliable narrator and discount/disregard anything she says. If she's foolish enough to stay in a relationship with a delinquent, drug-abusing, alcoholic emotional abuser....hey, that was her choice, and her competency as a responsible adult is questionable at best. If one of my junior male Marines walked came to me with the same sob story (and I've had Marines with bizarre relationship problems before), he'd get a pretty stern talking-to, some life advice...and we'd probably be questioning his decision-making and level of responsibility he can handle moving forward.

"Life is hard....it's even harder when you're stupid."

A firing squad implies execution. It is quite disingenuous to pretend the quote is about that.

The quote is about her in a war setting with a rifle of her own.

Maybe 'Battle Royale' or 'Hunger Games' as an execution but that is kinda far fetched.